Mueller : Trump is guilty of obstruction. Congress should handle it. Don't bother me again.

[mudwhistle]

That doesn't mean he could prove it in a court of law either.

.

He didn't need to, dope. Congress doesn't need to either.

Yep....impeachment used to be a legal matter......now Democrats are using it to overturn elections

But what do you expect from a bunch of anti-Americans.

It was never a legal matter.

If it was you know you'd get laughed out of court.

But it used to be you needed crimes to start impeachment. Since they don't have a crime and have been talking about impeachment since the day he won the election, more than half of America knows impeachment is purely political and illegitimate. The public may be moved to act. Democrats/Communists need a disarmed electorate in order to function.

Impeachment never required crimes. Only misconduct.

You don't even have that.

 

[mudwhistle]

It does, however, require a specific motive,m which Mueller could not find.

What could possibly be Trump's motive in obstructing investigations that were trying to discover evidence that he colluded with the Russians to win the election?

Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

There are 10 examples of obstruction in Muellers report

And 17 agencies said Trump colluded with the Russians

 

[edward37]

Even the judge on FOX Napliatano {sp{ says Trump is guilty

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Rules of DOJ, did not allow him to charge the president regardless of evidence so he decided not to make accusations because it would be unfair to do so. As he said, "It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution..." His job was to determine if there was sufficient evidence to pursuit an indictment before the grand jury. It certainly was not to issue press statements about his opinion of guilt or innocence of the president.

Wait...
Mueller could not, under DOJ rules conclude the President committed a crime?
Mueller, under the pretense of fairness, could not accuse, or potentially accuse, the President of a crime?
Really?

LOL...
You would be having a fit over how unfair it is to accuse someone who can't defend themselves if he had.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It does, however, require a specific motive,m which Mueller could not find.

What could possibly be Trump's motive in obstructing investigations that were trying to discover evidence that he colluded with the Russians to win the election?

Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

There are 10 examples of obstruction in Muellers report

And 17 agencies said Trump colluded with the Russians

So did Mueller

 

[M14 Shooter]

It does, however, require a specific motive,m which Mueller could not find.

What could possibly be Trump's motive in obstructing investigations that were trying to discover evidence that he colluded with the Russians to win the election?

Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

There are 10 examples of obstruction in Muellers report

There are 10 examples of -potential- obstruction in the report.
For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

 

[edward37]

It does, however, require a specific motive,m which Mueller could not find.

What could possibly be Trump's motive in obstructing investigations that were trying to discover evidence that he colluded with the Russians to win the election?

Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

There are 10 examples of obstruction in Muellers report

And 17 agencies said Trump colluded with the Russians

Can't believe them they're all commies and traitors and trump has a history of honesty and fairness LOL

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He didn't need to, dope. Congress doesn't need to either.

Yep....impeachment used to be a legal matter......now Democrats are using it to overturn elections

But what do you expect from a bunch of anti-Americans.

It was never a legal matter.

If it was you know you'd get laughed out of court.

But it used to be you needed crimes to start impeachment. Since they don't have a crime and have been talking about impeachment since the day he won the election, more than half of America knows impeachment is purely political and illegitimate. The public may be moved to act. Democrats/Communists need a disarmed electorate in order to function.

Impeachment never required crimes. Only misconduct.

You don't even have that.

Please......

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wait...
Mueller could not, under DOJ rules conclude the President committed a crime?
Mueller, under the pretense of fairness, could not accuse, or potentially accuse, the President of a crime?
Really?

REALLY Couldn't accuse if president couldn't defend himself and then there's a president can't be indicted??

So you agree - Mueller did not accuse, or potentially accuse, much less conclude, the President committed a crime.
Right?

 

[edward37]

It does, however, require a specific motive,m which Mueller could not find.

What could possibly be Trump's motive in obstructing investigations that were trying to discover evidence that he colluded with the Russians to win the election?

Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

There are 10 examples of obstruction in Muellers report

There are 10 examples of -potential- obstruction in the report.
For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Hows firing Comey when he wouldn't halt russian investigation? And preventing his lawyer from testifying to tell how he was told to lie for trump? An impeachment hearing should clear that up ,,,,,,,,,,,,and give the chance for the trump ass kissers in the senate to keep him in the WH

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are 10 examples of -potential- obstruction in the report.
For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Hows firing Comey when he wouldn't halt russian investigation? And preventing his lawyer from testifying to tell how he was told to lie for trump?

For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Per Mueller:
As an initial matter, the term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

Well?

 

[edward37]

FOX NEWS Shooter
Mueller report outlines Trump 'crimes,' but no obstruction conclusion because Barr wouldn't permit indictment: Judge Nap

 

[edward37]

There are 10 examples of -potential- obstruction in the report.
For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Hows firing Comey when he wouldn't halt russian investigation? And preventing his lawyer from testifying to tell how he was told to lie for trump?

For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Per Mueller:
As an initial matter, the term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

Well?

Mueller report: read the 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice ...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and.../mueller-report-obstruction-of-justice-summary
Apr 18, 2019 - Special counsel Robert Mueller's report contains 10instances where President Donald Trump potentially committed obstruction of justice.

 

[M14 Shooter]

FOX NEWS Shooter

Didn't you just argue that Mueller could not accuse, or potentially accuse, much less conclude, the President committed a crime?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are 10 examples of -potential- obstruction in the report.
For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Hows firing Comey when he wouldn't halt russian investigation? And preventing his lawyer from testifying to tell how he was told to lie for trump?

For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Per Mueller:
As an initial matter, the term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”
Well?

Mueller report: read the 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice ...

Uh-huh. And...

For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Per Mueller:
As an initial matter, the term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

Well?

 

[edward37]

FOX NEWS Shooter

Didn't you just argue that Mueller could not accuse, or potentially accuse, much less conclude, the President committed a crime?

Didn't barr say that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

FOX NEWS Shooter

Didn't you just argue that Mueller could not accuse, or potentially accuse, much less conclude, the President committed a crime?

Didn't barr say that?

So you DO agree - Mueller did not accuse, or potentially accuse, much less conclude, the President committed a crime.
Good to know!

 

[edward37]

FOX NEWS Shooter

Didn't you just argue that Mueller could not accuse, or potentially accuse, much less conclude, the President committed a crime?

Didn't barr say that?

So you DO agree - Mueller did not accuse, or potentially accuse, much less conclude, the President committed a crime.
Good to know!

True He didn't accuse or conclude BUT potentially accuse ?? There are TEN potential damning cases of obstruction

 

[M14 Shooter]

FOX NEWS Shooter

Didn't you just argue that Mueller could not accuse, or potentially accuse, much less conclude, the President committed a crime?

Didn't barr say that?

So you DO agree - Mueller did not accuse, or potentially accuse, much less conclude, the President committed a crime.
Good to know!

True He didn't accuse or conclude BUT potentially accuse ??

YOU said Mueller could not conclude trump committed a crime.
YOU said Mueller could not accuse - or even potentially accuse - Trump of a crime.
Did he or did he not do any of those things?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are TEN potential damning cases of obstruction

For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Per Mueller:
As an initial matter, the term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

Well?